From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:35:48 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer, add expiry time overflow check in
 hrtimer_interrupt
Message-ID: <20130425003548.GA16159@roeck-us.net>
References: <1365425235-26191-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com>
 <5163264B.3050707@linaro.org>
 <516329D2.1050003@redhat.com>
 <20130424224218.GA7767@roeck-us.net>
 <5178732F.6060304@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5178732F.6060304@linaro.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:05:03PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 04:34:26PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >>
> >>On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>On 04/08/2013 05:47 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >>>>A simple check for an overflow can resolve this problem.  Using KTIME_MAX
> >>>>instead of the overflow value will result in the hrtimer function being run,
> >>>>and the reprogramming of the timer after that.
> >>>>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
> >>>>Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> >>>>Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
> >>>Prarit: Should this be tagged for -stable?
> >>John,
> >>
> >>Yes, this should go to -stable.  cc'd.
> >>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am a bit surprised that this patch has not found its way into mainline yet,
> >as everyone seems to agree that it is a candidate for -stable.
> 
> It just has to land upstream first, which is likely in the next week
> or so when the 3.10 merge window opens. I'd have thought it would be
> sooner but 3.9 is taking longer to close then I expected (and I
> didn't think it was urgent enough to drop in at the last minute
> before the 3.9 release was made).
> 
Guess I am a bit lost in process.

If this is going to be in -stable, it will presumably end up in 3.9.x as well as
in earlier releases. So why wasn't it pushed into 3.9-rcX to start with ?

Guenter